|
|
|
|
|
by tikhonj
4895 days ago
|
|
I looked at it, but never used it. I certainly like the core idea and it would probably have been better for me than just using plain Racket. However, moving over to it--and getting other people to use it--would not have been that much easier than moving to Haskell. I was missing some specific type features: algebraic data types with pattern matching and custom numeric types (I needed 18-bit unsigned ints, of all things). I don't think Racket supports either of these. The numeric types, I suppose, are just a special case of wanting typeclasses. I really like typeclasses :P. Additionally, I had several non-type-related reasons to move to Haskell: laziness, purity (my teammates decided that global variables and having IO everywhere are fun) and more functional data structures (vectors in particular). |
|